Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Equestrian Selection Criteria for Paris Olympics 2024, Dismisses Allegations of Bias

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi, July 2024: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Shruti Vora challenging the selection criteria established by the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) for the Dressage event at the Paris Olympic Games 2024. The court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, upheld the selection criteria as balanced and in compliance with the Fédération Équestre Internationale (FEI) guidelines.

Shruti Vora, a prominent Indian Dressage athlete, filed a writ petition contesting the selection of Anush Agarwalla by EFI to represent India in the Dressage event at the upcoming Paris Olympics. Vora argued that the selection criteria were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfairly favored Agarwalla by relying on outdated performance metrics rather than recent form.

The court emphasized that the selection criteria adhered strictly to the FEI standards, ensuring both fairness and rationality. "The criteria reflect a balanced approach, incorporating both historical performance and current form," stated Justice Narula. The selection was based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events in the past year, which the court found to be a fair measure of an athlete's consistent performance.

Justice Narula reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in interfering with sports federations' selection criteria, citing precedents like Manini Kaushik v. National Rifle Association of India and Sushil Kumar v. Union of India. The court held that judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or perversity, neither of which was evident in this case.

Addressing the importance of consistency, the court found that Agarwalla's selection was based on his consistent high performance over the specified period. The use of historical performance metrics, the court noted, ensures the selection of stable and consistently high-performing athletes.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence and the appropriateness of using both past and recent performance metrics. The court upheld the EFI’s criteria, which mandated that an athlete-horse combination must achieve a minimum eligibility requirement (MER) of 67% in two FEI-listed qualification events between January 1, 2023, and June 24, 2024. In cases where multiple athletes met this requirement, the selection would then be based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events within the qualifying period.

Justice Narula remarked, "The integration of historical performance data ensures that selections are based on sustained excellence rather than transient form, thereby aligning with the principles of fairness and rationality."

The Delhi High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding fair and rational selection processes in sports. By affirming the EFI's adherence to FEI guidelines, the judgment sends a strong message about the reliability and integrity of established selection criteria. This landmark decision is expected to have a significant impact on future sports selections, reinforcing the legal framework for addressing disputes in sports governance.

 

Date of Decision: July 4, 2024

Shruti Vora v. Equestrian Federation of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News